KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant owes back taxes to the IRS for 2013 through 2015. He also had five
collection accounts and a charged-off account. These allegations are supported by Applicant’s
admissions. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-06525.a1
DATE: 08/10/2017
DATE: August 10, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-06525
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
April 17, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing. 
On May 18, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. 
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.  
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant has held a clearance for 31 years.  The SOR alleges that he failed to file Federal
and state income tax returns for 2013 and 2014.  He owes back taxes to the IRS for 2013 through
2015.  He also had five collection accounts and a charged-off account.  These allegations are
supported by Applicant’s admissions.  The non-tax allegations are supported by the contents of his
credit reports.
Applicant’s problems arose from a contentious divorce.  He claimed that his ex-wife’s lack
of cooperation was at the root of his failure to file his tax returns.  They finalized their divorce in
2016, and Applicant claimed that he filed his delinquent returns in that year.  Applicant failed to
provide promised copies of the returns.  He estimated his total debt as about $59,000.  Applicant
hired a tax professional who contacted the IRS about a payment plan, but Applicant provided no
documentation about this.  Applicant did resolve several collection accounts, however.
Applicant also has a debt resulting from a foreclosure on a timeshare.  Applicant testified that
he thought the debt had been cancelled, but he did not provide documentary proof.  Applicant
presented evidence that he will receive a substantial retirement pension of over $1 million.  He has
$30,000 in a retirement account, and his monthly income is about $3,500.  Applicant paid his wife
spousal support of about $23,000 for 2014 and 2015.  He has not sought financial counseling, and
he did not provide a budget.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that Applicant’s problems continue to cast doubt upon his judgment and
reliability.  Though noting Applicant’s divorce, he stated that Applicant’s tax problems went back
many years and that he failed to acquire professional assistance until late in 2016.  He stated that
Applicant’s dilatory response to his tax filings and his current, unaddressed tax debt are such that
there are no clear indications that his problems are under control.  He concluded that Applicant had
not demonstrated a good-faith effort to pay his debts.
Discussion
Much of Applicant’s appeal submission consists of matters from outside the record.  We
cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Applicant challenges the Judge’s
conclusion that he was dilatory in addressing his tax problems.  Much of his argument is an effort
to provide context for his financial problems in order to show that he had been diligent in addressing
them.  Applicant has not shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08842 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 14, 2017).
 The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record.  “The general standard is that a clearance may
be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”  Department
of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  See also Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b):  “Any
doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in
favor of the national security.”
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan           
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody             
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy              
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board